This essay was given 32/35 - A*.
There is much conflict concerning whether life after death is possible, but the idea that is impossible is commonly put forward by monist or materialist philosophers, including Ryle, Pinker and Dawkins. If the above statement (that life after death is impossible) is accepted, this brings with it several implications to philosophy and religion as a whole. Not only will all dualist theories have to be rejected, due to the rejection of the soul being immortal and living on beyond death, but religion as a whole should be abolished. If life after death is impossible, then so is the entire metaphysical and spiritual world that is a fundamental basis for all religion, including the existence of a God or other higher being. Without these, religion no longer has any foundations, and therefore can be disregarded. I personally agree that life after death is impossible, and shall explain my reasoning within this essay.
Firstly, Gilbert Ryle would agree that life after death is impossible, defining dualism as a “category mistake”. By this, he meant that philosophers who believe in the fundamental distinction between mind and matter are confusing two different logical types, and in actual fact mental and physical states are one and the same. He refers to the theory of the separation of the mind and body as the “dogma of the ghost in the machine”, explaining that there is no hidden entity (the ‘mind’) operating within our mechanical ‘body’, but instead our mental processes are simply a way of explaining our physical actions. For this reason, he adopts the monist approach that when our body dies, we die completely. There is nothing left of us to live on, and for this reason life after death must be impossible.
A very similar approach to this is the biological reductionism of Steven Pinker. A cognitive scientist and psychologist, Pinker accepts the findings of modern neuroscience which proves that everything can be reduced to biological explanations. We may feel that we only act as a result of our mind willing us to do something, but in actual fact the explanation for every physical action can be seen to be sourced from the brain. Pinker highlights the fact that using structural MRI and PET scans, neuroscientists are able to see that “every form of mental activity gives off metabolic signals”, which then travel along neural pathways in the brain and stimulate physical activity as a response. Nothing about this requires any metaphysical or spiritual input, rendering any beliefs of a mind or soul completely unnecessary and hence illogical. Pinker states that “when the brain dies, the person goes out of existence”, thus we can conclude, with huge amounts of supporting scientific evidence, that life after death is indeed impossible.
On the other end of the spectrum, Descartes presents his theory of dualism, and from this claims that life after death is not only possible, but also certain. Unlike Ryle and Pinker, Descartes firmly believes that the mind and body are entirely separable and very different entities. Through his use of the a priori argument ‘cogito ergo sum’, Descartes suggests that we can even be more certain of the existence of our mind than our body, especially as we can witness the body dividing/decaying, but we “cannot understand a mind except as being indivisible.” Being heavily influenced by Platonic concepts, Descartes used this idea to develop a syllogism to supposedly prove the immortality of the soul. He stated that if something cannot be broken down into composite parts, it must be immortal. Therefore as the mind cannot be broken into composite parts, the mind must be immortal. This leads on to Descartes’ certainty in life after death. If the mind is immortal but the body is mortal, then the mind must live on beyond the death of a person’s body. Therefore some form of afterlife is logically necessary if one is to accept the previous premises of the Cartesian theory. However, I feel Descartes’ argument is particularly weak as while he does claim to prove the existence of the mind through a priori logic, he lacks any empirical evidence to support either that the mind does exist or that it is immortal. As stated earlier, science is instead able to support the claim that when a person’s body dies, they completely cease to exist. Using ‘Ockham’s razor’, it would be far more logical to accept this simple explanation than unnecessarily over-complicating the issue.
However while Ryle and Descartes seem to lie on opposite ends of the spectrum concerning the possibility of life after death, there are several other philosophers who adopt less extreme dualist or monist views.
Hick, for example, is often considered a ‘soft materialist’, as while he argues in the direction of materialism, he also believes there is an afterlife, but one that is physical rather than spiritual. Rejecting the common Christian belief that a person’s soul is immortal and this is what is resurrected, Hick proposes that upon the death of our current bodies, a ‘replica’ of our body is made and placed in a special, separate place of existence. This ‘replica theory’ therefore accounts for life after death, while avoiding all the problems associated with dualism and body-soul interactions. While the theory seems to be largely a leap of faith, Hick states that we need the resurrection world in order to “fulfil the human potential”, which apparently “does not usually occur within the space of a single earthly life”. If our lives do continue in an ongoing “karmic wave” as stated by Hick, we will have much more time to realise and fulfil our God-given intention, a concept which is very compatible with the soul-making theodicy of Irenaeus. However, there are some very fundamental weaknesses of Hick’s theory. Firstly, by stating that we will immediately be replicated into another realm upon death, Hick seems to be ignoring the question of punishment or judgement. If we are all replicated, then we all have a chance to live again, no matter what sins we have committed in our past lives. Furthermore, Vardy raises issues with the continuity of Hick’s ‘replicas’. Despite the replica being physically identical and also thinking they are the same person, Vardy doesn’t think this sufficiently solves issues raised with personal identity. For example, if a copy of the Mona Lisa was made that was identical even at a molecular level, it is unlikely that this copy would be considered the exact same as the original, and equal in value. The same could be said of people: just because a replica is physically the same, even with the same thoughts, it is still not the same person. By considering this fairly fatal flaw in Hick’s argument, it is easy to disregard his theory altogether, returning to the proposition that life after death is indeed impossible. Ockham’s razor could once again be used here, as if there is evidence to suggest that we cease to exist when we die, there is no need to add on unnecessary explanations, as the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
Dawkins is another key scholar to consider when debating the possibility of life after death, however unlike Hick, Dawkins is much more in agreement with Ryle and Pinker than Descartes. While he agrees with the materialist view that there is no distinction or separation between the mind and soul, Dawkins does believe that there is some mental activity, but that this has come about through evolution. He states that everything can be explained through DNA and genes, and that rather than having a ‘soul’, every emotion and action we express is a result of evolutionary ‘consciousness’. For this reason, Dawkins does not quite fit into the biological reductionism of Pinker, as while he does state that everything we do is a result of our DNA, he thinks that we have evolved to develop some form of non-physical consciousness in order to benefit ourselves and in order to survive, a theme which he particularly emphasises in his book, ‘The Selfish Gene’. When describing the process by which animals developed consciousness, he stated that the good or bad results of a good or bad action will cause us to either repeat or stop doing the action, therefore enabling us to choose how to behave in the future. While people argue that this process still seems to be a conscious decision, and therefore does suggest the existence of the mind, Dawkins refutes this. His point was that we do not need any kind of spiritual input to train ourselves in this way, it is all as a result of biological processes, including the replication of DNA, that results in the evolution of our brain to know how to act. Therefore this is yet another successful rejection of the dualist distinction between the mind and body, thus also drawing the conclusion that life after death is impossible due to the lack of an immortal spiritual entity within us.
In conclusion, while there have been several arguments claiming to prove the certainty of the afterlife, they are all based upon assumptions and clearly lack empirical evidence. On the contrary, science and valid logic have been utilised to support the more materialistic and monist end of the spectrum, making the arguments of Ryle, Pinker and Dawkins that life after death is impossible much more plausible. I find Pinker’s input into this discussion among the most valuable, as he puts forward clear scientific fact and “empirical discovery” that can certainly not be disputed. The fact that we are able to see the brain as an explanation for everything we do should enable us to completely disregard all theories concerning any aspects of the metaphysical world. As Ockham’s principle states, “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.” There is no need to fabricate theories on the soul when we have all the explanation we need, and therefore I strongly believe we should simply accept the scientific evidence and works of biological reductionists to prove once and for all that life after death is impossible.
Mark/comment:
AO1: 19/21, AO2: 13/14
"Very well written. What comes through most is the confidence you have in the ability to select and deploy various scholarly views.
You've got the right balance between AO1 and AO2 - well done!"
No comments:
Post a Comment